RODRIGO vs RODRIGO 16 SCRA 475 March, 1966

RODRIGO vs RODRIGO

16 SCRA 475

March, 1966

FACTS: On March 8, 1960 and months previous, Romualdo Rodrigo, accused, deliberately did there and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and criminally kept in his possession one male horse which is specifically described under Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle No. 4685981, legally belonging to FELIX MUERTEIGUE, said accused knowing as he does that the aforementioned horse was stolen from the ranch of said Felix Muertigue at Casabangan, Pio V. Corpuz, Masbate, and deliberately failed as he did fail to deliver the same to the authorities or to its owner.

Rodrigo was charge with crime of theft of large cattle, but the case was dismissed by the Justice of the Peace of Pio V. Corpuz. The said order was affirmed by the CFI of Masbate, hence the Solicitor General appeals the case before the SC.

ISSUE: Whether or not the lower court erred in ruling that the complaint of theft of large cattle was defective because the element of “intent to gain” is not alleged.

RULING: Yes. The Court finds that the complaint filed against the defendant-appellee satisfies the requirements in charging the offense of theft of large cattle as defined in Art. 310 in relation to Par. 2, subparagraph 1, Art. 308 of the RPC.

Sec. 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court states that an information or complaint is considered sufficient if it states the name of the defendant; the designation of the offense by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed. The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense must also be stated in ordinary and concise language without repetition, not necessarily in the terms of the statute defining the offense, but in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged, and enable the court to pronounced his proper judgment

Moreover, the complaint in question designates the offense charged as "theft of large cattle." This is the crime defined in Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, in connection with Article 308 thereof.  Although one of the elements essential in the crime of theft of large cattle in Art. 308 is intent to gain, under paragraph 2, subparagraph (1) of the same article, however, the elements are (1) the finding of lost property; and (2) the failure of the finder to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner. In this kind of theft intent of gain is inferred from the deliberate failure to deliver the lost property to the proper person, the finder knowing that the property does not belong to him.

The appellee’s contention that the complaint refer to a stolen horse does not fall under said particular paragraph, "stolen property" not being the same as "lost property” is without merit. The word "lost" is generic in nature, and embraces loss by stealing or by any act of a person other than the owner, as well as by the act of the owner himself or through some casual occurrence. If anything, the finder who fails deliberately to return the thing lost may be considered more blameworthy if the loss was by stealing than through some other means.